09 April 2011 10:45 PM

From draper’s son to judge . . . THAT was social mobility

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

The phrase ‘social mobility’ has been twisted round by the elite to mean the opposite of what it once did. In their mouths it signifies ‘crude discrimination against those who seek to advance themselves or their children through effort and talent’.

This is a wicked perversion. Here is what it really means: when this was still a free country, you could climb thanks to your talent and hard work. My favourite example is that of Lord Denning, one of six children of a Hampshire draper who became the greatest judge of our time.

One of his brothers, Reginald, helped plan the D-Day landings and became a general. Another, Norman, became an admiral, and Director of Naval Intelligence. The boys’ mother, Clara, must have been quite a person, but Whitchurch National School and Andover Grammar School should take a little credit too.

In their austere, disciplined, orderly classrooms, children from poor homes could learn real knowledge, and gain the habits of work and diligence that might take them to the very summit of our once-open society. If they had talent, it would be nurtured and encouraged.

If they were studious, they would not be bullied for it, but rewarded.

Faced with ferocious exams, which it was possible to fail, they learned that real life wasn’t easy and had to be tackled with application and determination. That’s how a proper middle class, confident, strong and open to talent, is made.

But those who now shape and direct our society long ago destroyed these places. Believing it was kinder, they scrapped the discipline, the order and the rigour, and turned the exams into feeble jokes.

When the truth became clear, they refused to change their minds but carried on as before. The three Denning brothers would rapidly have had their hopes crushed by today’s state school system.

If three such boys – or girls – now exist, we will never hear of them, except perhaps in the courts, because the corruption of the best is the worst of all, and a bright and energetic mind, when all the doors of ambition and hope are slammed in its face, can easily turn to wrongdoing.

I cannot express on paper just how angry this makes me, or how angry it ought to make you. The nearest I can come to it is this – to say to Nicholas Clegg, David Cameron and Edward Miliband that they are all three of them cruel, contemptible and stupid, enemies of promise, enemies of their country, and enemies of the poor.

And in each case the crime is especially serious because of their own immense personal privilege. I hope all their political careers end in abject, howling failure, preferably with them being laughed out of office, the only punishment they are likely to understand.

Because all three of them, and their wretched parties, have set their faces against the honest self-improvement that is the mark of a free society. Instead, they gargle the discredited slogans of equality – an equality they don’t even believe in for themselves or their children.

You will have to ask yourselves why the leaders of supposedly democratic parties in a supposedly free society have endorsed a policy that is more or less identical to that of the Eastern European communists of the Forties.

More importantly, you will have to ask yourselves why on earth you have continued to vote for them, knowing what they are and what they stand for.

Were the varnished toes a hit, Baroness?

The sight of a barefoot Baroness Warsi, in full hijab, accompanying Mr Cameron (in his socks) to a mosque in Islamabad prompted a number of irreverent questions to which I do not know the answers.

They go (in no particular order): Would the mullahs have approved of the Baroness’s daring choice of toenail polish? Why doesn’t she wear a headscarf on public occasions in Britain?

Was Mr Cameron trying to buy votes among British Pakistanis when he announced a huge £650 million dollop of aid to the Islamic Republic? Do Pakistani leaders visit Westminster Abbey when they come to London?

Since then, I have been consumed with curiosity about those other pictures of Mr and Mrs Cameron on their cheapo Ryanair holiday to Spain.

Does the Prime Minister really need to go to cashpoints? And when will the real holiday be?

Daft Dave’s ‘leasehold’ Empire

The Prime Minister was right when he pointed out that most of the major crises in the world have their roots in the British Empire. It’s unquestionably true. Afghanistan’s stupid border? Our fault.

The endless Indo-Pakistan tension? Our fault. The mess in the Middle East? Our fault. The destruction of democracy in Iran? Our fault.

I am myself a child of Empire, born in what was then Malta GC when the mighty Mediterranean Fleet still filled the Grand Harbour at Valletta. And, having seen one or two other empires in action, I still say ours was the best.

What’s more, it seems to me that in this cruel world you either have an empire or become part of somebody else’s, and I know which I prefer.

The problems I list above were mostly not caused by the Empire itself. They followed its sudden, rapid collapse after the disastrous surrender of Singapore in 1942, one of the worst of the many failures and retreats that took place under the over-praised leadership of Winston Churchill.

People keep saying that we made a good job of withdrawing from Empire.

It’s just not true. The scuttles from India and Palestine were needlessly bloody and crude. They left grave, unsolved problems.

If you take over someone else’s country, you have to stay there for good, and commit yourself absolutely.

The current fashion for leasehold colonialism, where you barge in with bombs and soldiers and then clear off, is guaranteed to cause more difficulties than it solves.

That said, I have never seen such an adventure crumble into chaos and failure as quickly as Mr Cameron’s ill-considered Libyan affair. Bombing our own side?

Well, I never. But how on earth do we get out now we’re in? So much for the brilliance of Etonians, eh?

****************************I don't think the Tory leadership really want us to vote NO in the AV referendum, do you? They’re not trying. All the more reason to vote NO, then.

****************************Almost every year, the presentation of the winners’ prize on the final of University Challenge is ruined by some celeb, or Jeremy Paxman himself, saying that the show proves there’s no ‘dumbing down’ in British education. This year, it was the turn of the ever-so-slightly over-praised historian Antony Beevor.

Actually the programme is gripping evidence that education is going down the plughole, as undergraduates goggle blankly when asked to identify easy quotations from major classics of English literature. It’s not just that they don’t know the answers.

It’s that they don’t know they don’t know. Meanwhile, the supposedly all-knowing Mr Paxman still can’t cope with German words or place names. Halle doesn’t rhyme with ballet.

Mr Hyde .not quite the end of the road it seems .
I remember now that event.I cast a suspicious eye over it at that time ,for which I apologise. You had no reason to make up such an event . All I can say now is ,that it has been known for the enemies of the BNP to plant themselves within, to cause this sort of trouble . But accepting your case that he was a member .
I say this Our national organiser. A very high position to hold .Has a Japanese wife , who until recently could not be a member . But it did not stop him from joining . As the real purpose of the BNP is to save Britain from Islam and other such threats to our National collapse.
Now this urchin you encountered probably left us long ago or was sacked for his behaviour . But rest assured he wouldn't last a minute in the party today.
And best wishes to your little one .Not all members if indeed he was, act in such a way. As our enemy resides in Westminster and it is they we hate.

"What baffles me is why people still think we're an independent country? In some ways I admire our silent conquerors who have done so without letting on. Or is it the case that we are all so apathetic and stupid in Britain we still believe our politicians when they holler meaningless buzzwords across the airwaves like 'spreading democracy', 'crackdown on mass immigraton', 'in Europe but not run by Europe' etc?".

Mark, it's rather like a stage magician, he talks and gestures a lot to divert the audience from seeing what he's really doing, then, when he pulls the rabbit out of the hat, they are all amazed and baffled. This use of smoke and mirrors is perfectly acceptable for entertainers but, when it comes to politicians, I had hoped, vainly I fear, that the electorate would scrutinise more closely. Perhaps stupidity and apathy do explain it all.

Well Mike, it seems we have come to the end of the road. I must confess I'm occasionally too eager to mock in my posts which is certanly impolite of me and I am genuinely sorry for resorting to that. You are right too in that we will never agree, so probably best to leave it there.

One last point, I didn't get a smack in the gob (not yet anyway), the "alleged member" screamed threatening abuse at my two year old son for the crime of being half Slovak. Had I just been punched I would probably have gotten over it. That on the other hand really sticks in my craw....

Well Mr Hyde
Last post on this thread as we will never see eye to eye. But its name calling that gets my goat .If you have a case to put .Calling one a buffoon opens you up to ridicule . You say I,m difficult to read .But it seems you get the drift. I went to grammar school but wished I hadn't . I spent the next forty years doing a job that required no keyboard skills whatever , and I do sometimes not re read my posts .So why say it. I do not know what you are employed as .But in my line of work I was considered a bench mark and good .
I never hide behind anyone or thing .
My political leanings are well stated here. You know exactly what they are, whereas I do not know your apart from a dislike, of the BNP because at some point an alleged member gave you a smack in the gob .At least I think its you .
Therefore I quite understand you reluctance to embrace it.

Joshua Wooderson quotes me: 'I believe that there are many judges who retire with satisfaction at the increase in crime they have helped to cause in their careers, and similarly in education there are many who feel a glow of satisfaction that they have destroyed a once-great educational system. For them, turning a good school into a ‘Lord of the Flies’ school is something to be proud of.’

And then he says: “Um... right. Evidence? Or is this just a, dare I say it, paranoid fantasy?”

Evidence. DM article 2009:
“Children were suspended from school more than 83,000 times last year for attacking teachers and other children …Primary and secondary schools in England also excluded pupils for a fixed period 94,740 times for verbally abusing or threatening teachers and other children.”

The education industry must be satisfied with this outcome, otherwise they would do something about it. We are not talking about how to eliminate malaria, we are talking about something where everyone knows the solution. The way of returning to calm, order and learning is not some great mystery or hard to work out. Therefore if the solutions are obvious, and they are not being taken by the education establishment, it follows that they must be satisfied with the anarchy their methods are causing. Note that many teachers support ‘inclusiveness’ as applied to the badly-behaved, as shown by the way they vote for union reps who support ‘inclusiveness’. And teacher trainers obviously support it. These types in our education system are the ones to blame for almost all of the 83,000 assaults mentioned above and the other 94,740 incidents, because they have chosen the system where these incidents occur frequently when they could have chosen the system where they occur rarely. In fact there are a lot more than 83,000 assaults as most assaults do not end in expulsion. For example, I know a Year 6 boy who was semi-strangled by a much larger boy whose punishment was just to to say sorry. After that the bully continued to sit next to his victim in class to torment him. After complaints from the parents, the teachers ‘asked’ the bully to move whenever he did this in future. This is a lesson for the children that the teachers will not enforce fairness or justice, and that they allow the bullies to rule.

So the evidence backs up what I said, namely that as (1) we have 83,000 + 94,740 + the unreported incidents (2) the educational establishment could easily stop it but CHOOSES not to , therefore (3) they must be satisfied with it.

The same applies to those who are involved in our prisons and judiciary. Once again, the solutions to increasing crime are obvious but are not taken. Therefore those who do not to take them must be satisfied with the crime they are causing. A normal person would experience the torment of guilt for the crime they cause and desist.

Finally a point I can concede to you. You are absolutely right; ‘Pidgin English’ is the phrase I should have used. I offer my humblest apologies.

Now, just let me stop laughing and I’ll get to the rest of your post. You are free to admire whomever you wish, I couldn’t care less. My main reason for discussing this with you is a desire for you to be open and honest for once instead of hiding behind innuendo as you all too frequently do. You admire Tyndall – go right ahead. That you admire one who would say and believe such things merely speaks all the more loudly about you.

I love your conception of me as some sort of ultra liberal member of the chattering classes. I assure you though that I am quite well read, having taken in a large number of ‘Mr’ Tyndall’s works, as well as others from across the spectrum (including Mein Kampf). After all, one cannot criticise something unless one understands it.

On to your irrelevant point about the bombing of other countries; I would guess that there are few on this blog more vociferous than I in (probably quite arrogantly) condemning liberal interventionism and the illegalities of our recent wars. Why would you bring up the wars in an argument against me? Do you think I support them? I don’t. So ‘Mr’ Tyndall never bombed a country eh? Well bully for him. I have no desire to put words in his mouth and claim that he would do, contrary to your accusation. I have no need to invent words for him as he damned himself with his own many times over. He may not have ordered bombings but he did seem to want to get his hands on a few machine guns for use on his own people…

By the way, why do you think Livingston is a hero of mine? What have I ever said to imply that? Or are you just doing what you accuse me of and pigeon holing me (I think that’s the right ‘pigeon’ this time) because I disagree with you?

Oh, and I don’t care that we disagree as you state. I just want you to stop hiding behind insinuation and be more honest about your beliefs. Thanks though for considering me perfect, you may well think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

Mr Hyde
By the way Its Pidgin English. Pidgeon is a bird of the dove genus .Much hated by Kenny Livingtsone . No doubt a hero of yours. I believe he read Mein Kamph too.
Like you sentence "particularly when it comes to things he like to talk about" people in glass houses and all that

You see Mr Hyde you call me a buffoon.
I never said I agree with anything or every thing Mr Tyndall said. I said I admired him . His honesty may have made him a pariah to the likes of you . But honesty is not prevelent amongst todays crop of * acceptable politicians *
So he said what he said .How many of todays politicain may think those thoughts but keep stum. Afer all its a good living.
It also seem you have a knowledge of his works . Perhaps you should read them all and find out just how much has come to pass.
His Bible was Mein Kampf you say .A pretty inoccuous book, its the author you don't like I presume. Try the Koran .much more subversive. Or Das Kapital. Very popular with the chattering classes.
Plus Mr Tyndall has never ordered bombing of other countries . You may well try to say he would have if the chance existed .But he never did. So get your head down and read away what ever tickles your fancy .And I'll hold in esteem whom ever I fancy .
Oh I am sorry I forgot You do not like people that choose a different path to yours. And they must be wrong. You are perfect .

"we seem to have survived a number of years without being part of somebody's empire, and indeed it seems that the age of great empires which covered half of the globe is over."

Sorry, I don't think you're paying attention. We are already ruled by somebody's empire- the European Union- I even saw an EU directive on photocopiers in the university library not too long ago- says it all really..

The fact is, when a foreign power (this is not a rant against foreigners before you accuse me of that) makes up your rules and tells you what you can and can't do then it seems you are a part of that power's territory. Sorry, but that's the way it is..

What baffles me is why people still think we're an independent country? In some ways I admire our silent conquerors who have done so without letting on. Or is it the case that we are all so apathetic and stupid in Britain we still believe our politicians when they holler meaningless buzzwords across the airwaves like 'spreading democracy', 'crackdown on mass immigraton', 'in Europe but not run by Europe' etc?

The ever delightful Mike Barnes tells me, in his usual pigeon English, that John Tyndall is a man I am, “not worth to quote on any item”, alleging him to be, “a true Gentleman with clear eyesight and enormous integrity.”
Well, you’ve got me there Mike. I hope to God that you never, ever consider me, “worth to quote” ‘Mr’ Tyndall on any topic, particularly when it comes to things he like to talk about. Things like this for example:
“Mein Kampf is my Bible”. Well it certainly isn’t mine and I hope Mike Barnes never deems me worthy of saying such a thing. Likewise, “Many who feel that Hitler was right do not believe it is safe yet to state such views openly. But times will change.” That’s another humdinger I wouldn’t want to be ascociated with.
What about, “when we get to power our opponents will be swept away like flies”, or maybe even, “the only thing the Africans have given us is Voodoo, witchcraft and AIDS”. Hmm, no I’d still rather not be deemed worthy of saying such things by Mike Barnes or anyone else.
I must admit, I’d always thought of Mike Barnes as an eccentric buffoon who’d let frustrations with politicians lead him down an unpleasant path. His support of such a thoroughly evil man as ‘Mr’ Tyndall though suggests something different. I hereby thank Mike Barnes unreservedly for deeming me unworthy of being ascociated with the evil ‘Mr’ Tyndall’s quotes. I wish him every happiness in his own ascociation with them. I’m sure there are plenty of others Mr Barnes can hold close to his heart as he hero worships an unrepentant neo Nazi. Maybe this one for example, “What we need is a few machine guns…Hitler was right.”

Terry Courtnadge: Thanks for the further explanation. (I was being facetious about the "evil English", by the way. I have the same position on the Empire as Mr. Hitchens does.) I am guessing that the difference between the French and British influence in Africa is probably something that is best understood by experiencing it in person, like you have. I have never been to Africa, but I know from my experience in Sri Lanka and Malaysia that much colonial influence was left over in the school system, government institutions, the banking system, cuisine, railroads, and other infrastructure (although the Malaysian elite don't seem to like this fact). My Malaysian wife was made fluent in English from childhood and was raised on English nursery rhymes and literature, and she had more affinity for Britain than many native-born Canadians of British descent do. (I can't resist teasing her about driving on the wrong side of the road, though - we drive on the right side in North America!)

Also, it seems that, at least until the last generation or two, many West Indians of African descent were more English than the English in many ways.

Further to my previous post Alan, I would go so far as to say that a system primarily based on privilege/wealth (whether 'Hampstead' or 'Old Etonion') - such as ours - is necessarily an obstacle to effective selection, as the ruling elite fight to preserve class privilege/power by eradicating competition from below (yes, the psychopaths in charge really do think in these terms).

As Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, the 1968-generation Marxist radicals and their 2nd and 3rd generation proteges seem to have a very similar agenda to the ruling aristocrats of old - they seem to want to 'engineer' a society where there is only a small group at the top, namely party officials, and a mass of slave-labourers underneath, with a small or non-existent middle-class. The only difference being that it would be themselves at the top, rather than the 'toffs' (no surprises there then).

That is why they first supported selection by ability, correctly believing that it would assist working class social mobility, only to realise their folly as a new independent-minded middle class (crucially, beyond their control) was being created, this time based on ability rather than social-positioning. Therefore they did a 'u-turn' and abolished the grammars.

In many ways, all these different forces - Old Labour, New Labour, Thatcherite, New Tories etc - seem to have coalesced into a new, toxic ruling class, intent on preserving their own power at the expense of either social justice or the national interest - the possiblity of becoming middle-class is what made the West forge ahead and avoid the fossilisation of more feudal societies.

While it is silly to suggest that 'private tuition' should be abolished, it is desirable I feel to weaken the institutions which keep a large pool of the nation's talent under subjugation and virtually excluded from the professions.

While it should be possible for a draper's son to ascend to high court judge, it should by the same token be possible for the son of an old Etonion not to gain automatic access to an Oxbridge education and the professions - this is the true mark of an advanced social model, and from which the conclusion is inescapable that we have in fact regressed. No more Dennis Potters for us I'm afraid!

No Mr Wooderson
I beg to differ .Bob might well be his name and Bob may well be his fathers name .Unless you know different . And calling someone the spawn of, is hardly polite conversation . .
Try it the next time you bump into someone in the street. I.m not against insult per se, I was just making slight of the use of spawn instead of son .when those three letters appear in your name also . Leaving you I might say open to a little ridicule.

In reply to Mr Hyde .
It seems explainations lead to just more questions
I am not totally aware of how due process and the democratic process became linked on this thread.
The rule of law and its outcome are one thing ,Democracy is another .And mores the point. neither I or this Blogs author believe democracy is alive and well here in Blighty.
And as far As Mr Tydall RIP is concerned. No I believe he was a man, you are not worth to quote on any item . A true Gentleman with clear eyesight and enormous integrity.

Brooks Davis :
I think I'm not far wrong if I say that all European Colonial powers did some bad things during their conquests - but in some circumstances, a lot of good also.
It's too long a story to go into here. But I will just make the point about French colonial history. What I was trying to say was that the French immersed themselves far more into the life in the territories that they 'occupied', if that is not too strong a word to use in this post colonial age. So that, if you were travel, now, to a former French colony in say Africa - a good example, you would sense an air of Frenchness, mostly in the main towns.
But, go to most former British colonies in likewise Africa, I don't think Britain left much behind apart from the English language and possibly some names of streets and suberbs. Oh, and all apart from Gambia drive on the correct side of the road!

Yes, that clears up entirely the question of what you would like to see happen. I'm still confused though to your belief that such a fate is, "sure and certain". Why so?

I should as well praise your commitment (on this thread at least) to, "due process". It is certainly a welcome change from the various insinuations you have made on this blog about 'what to do when the democratic process doesn't give you the result you want' etc.

Could it be you are turning away from the worst excesses of Mr Tyndall's nightmare at last? I do hope so.

Alan Thomas: "I'm not certain if your 'we' refers to all those on my short world list, all those in Canada, or just those in your immediate circle." - I mean the majority of young Canadians.

"Perhaps it was more a case of respect, fondness, or just being part of the family." - None of that applies here for young Canadians, anymore. Canadians in English Canada are now raised to think of national identity as civic citizenship rather than ethnic heritage, much like Americans are. Yet, those sentiments would still prevail if we were still taught to value our British foundations, which still pervade our culture - but they are deliberately unrecognized.

"But whatever, the main point of my post was to question the comparison to France and its colonial past." - I was wondering what Mr. Courtnadge had to say about that, too. I could add that French language and culture has survived and dominated Quebec since Wolfe out-soldiered Montcalm in 1759. If the story in Mauritius was the same as it was here, then it was because London was either too soft-hearted or too confident in the self-evident superiority of English culture to ship those proud, turbulent Frenchies to Louisiana where they belonged, like they did the Acadians in 1755 ... Yes, indeed, a quick Wikipedia check shows that the evil English rewarded their defeat by letting them keep their language, laws and customs, like here in Canada!

Mike Barnes writes: 'In reply to Mr Wooderson.
Or should that be Wooderspawn.
Sure defeat is always prefaced by unpleasant name calling.'

My alteration was merely intended as a jovial play on Bob's pseudonym. If it were his real name, I wouldn't have done so, as people can't help what name they have, but if they adopt the name then I see it as fair game for mockery. 'Spawn' is hardly offensive anyway.

'Bob describes some Judges as pleased with the situation they have in someway allowed. May be by political pressure and not personal. who can tell
But its his view. Why must one have to provide facts I could say 63% of all judges are incompetent. That could be challenged with regard factuality. But a general comment that some judges are incompetent does not. Its just a view, and we are all entitled to those are we not.'

Saying 'many judges do x' is a factual statement, merely one which is less specific than saying '63% of judges'. 'Many' implies a substantial number, something which should surely be substantiated.

'All I know from seeing judges at work is they are inteligent folk ,but prone to not have a street wise outlook. Plus of course the charge that the judicary were infiltrated in the sixties buy the hard left. These are generalisations but not in need of factual evidence .'

Why not in need of evidence? Is opinion so sacred that it may not be challenged? If I said (to choose what is an inflammatory example on this blog) that many species have evolved from less developed species, or even that all species have, I would be expected to give evidence, and rightly so.

'Paranoid fantasies aside." Lord of the flies " is a fictional account of the thin line between civilised behaviour and the jungle. That Mr Wooderson seem a very smart parallel to some schools today. And the book its self is probably not known to a high proportion of modern students ,and teachers as well. No I have no factual evidence. It just a view.'

As I understand it, it's on the GCSE syllabus at the moment for some exam boards, or was recently. Certainly, some schools are rough - they always have been - but that wasn't what I was disputing. I was disputing the odd claim that many teachers and judges revel in undermining the system.

- Alan, the Left are opposed to both privilege and selection, whereas the (true) Right (not the Tories) are opposed to merely privilege, but not selection.

This is because it recognises the reality of heirarchy within nature and therefore the importance of educational selection for our national survival.

The Left are merely in the grip of an ideological dogma / fantasy which would see the species reduced to a uniform mass (apart from themselves, naturally), something which does not exist anywhere within nature, which is hierarchial.

This is actually a profound difference in Left/Right ideology - there is common ground in opposition to privilege, but for different reasons. I can't really speak for the Tories though - I think they just want to preserve monopoly for themselves and their rich friends . . .

In reply to Mr Wooderson.
Or should that be Wooderspawn.
Sure defeat is always prefaced by unpleasant name calling. Bob describes some Judges as pleased with the situation they have in someway allowed. May be by political pressure and not personal. who can tell
But its his view. Why must one have to provide facts I could say 63% of all judges are incompetent. That could be challenged with regard factuality. But a general comment that some judges are incompetent does not. Its just a view, and we are all entitled to those are we not.
All I know from seeing judges at work is they are inteligent folk ,but prone to not have a street wise outlook. Plus of course the charge that the judicary were infiltrated in the sixties buy the hard left. These are generalisations but not in need of factual evidence . Paranoid fantasies aside." Lord of the flies " is a fictional account of the thin line between civilised behaviour and the jungle. That Mr Wooderson seem a very smart parallel to some schools today. And the book its self is probably not known to a high proportion of modern students ,and teachers as well. No I have no factual evidence. It just a view.

Mr Hyde
Asks for me to expand on that . Well the post was for William I who I'm sure understood the remark. But for those not able to understand humour allthough directed for someone else .
Williams first posts were to say the least, aggressive towards the establishment Now they are not so. I just reversed the situation.
In all my posts on this thread I say Due Process is absolute. The sentence might be more severe . Again I'm on record here as describing that also .But just for your benifit I will repeat it. Politicians that can be proven to have acted in a way detrimental to this land ,should have there fortunes /assets stripped ( as we are led to believe criminals do ) and made to live on the benifits most worthy people have to do. and on the sink estates they lived as far away from as possible.
Does that clear it up for you.

Although there is much to agree with here, Mr. Hitchens spoils it with the silly comment: “I don't think the Tory leadership really want us to vote NO in the AV referendum, do you? They’re not trying. All the more reason to vote NO, then.”

This is another example of logic failure. In the same article he says, “More importantly, you will have to ask yourselves why on earth you have continued to vote for [the three major parties], knowing what they are and what they stand for.”

Despite damning condemnation of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties, he continues to support the voting system that keeps them in power. Instead of passively urging us not to vote for them he could do something positive and support a change to the voting system. A new system would encourage people to vote for smaller parties in General Elections - as many already do in local and European elections – and perhaps even pave the way for the new party he has spoken of in the past.

Of course, anyone who likes British politics the way it is should do as Mr. Hitchens urges and vote “no”!

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.